lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:24:27 -0400 From: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com> To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, x86@...nel.org, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, davem@...emloft.net, willy@...radead.org, ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org, will.deacon@....com, catalin.marinas@....com, sam@...nborg.org Subject: Re: [v6 07/15] mm: defining memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_raw >> Sure, I could do this, but as I understood from earlier Dave Miller's >> comments, we should do one logical change at a time. Hence, introduce API in >> one patch use it in another. So, this is how I tried to organize this patch >> set. Is this assumption incorrect? > > Well, it really depends. If the patch is really small then adding a new > API along with users is easier to review and backport because you have a > clear view of the usage. I believe this is the case here. But if others > feel otherwise I will not object. I will merge them. Thank you, Pasha
Powered by blists - more mailing lists